How the AFL’s ‘power’ clubs have lost power

[Papa G]

Rubbish, it's the tv rights deal not the MCG contract. Completely separate issues.

No they aren't. 10 of the top 12 highest drawing games are mandated to be at the MCG. It is the AFLs contractual obligation to get atleast 10 of the biggest drawing games to the MCG. So what do they do? They promote, promote, promote these Faux "Blockbusters" as event matches, nationally broadcast in the best timeslots and in stand alone public holidays or Friday nights. And its not just 10. Its more like 15 or 16 just in case a few don't live up to the hype. To meet their contractual obligation. Rotated through the same 5 or 6 bigger Vic clubs. Eddie's grubby hands have been all over this deal and of course it is Collingwood who benefit the most, but the other 4 or 5 bigger Melbourne clubs all get a piece. More gate. More exposure. More sponsorship. And its all connected to the grubby MCG Contract.

 

[Obeanie1]

2021 Distributions
GC 26,317,000
GWS 23,500,00
Bris 21,574,000
Saints 21446,000
Melb 18,957,000
WB 18,808,000
North 17,441,000
Carlton 15,880,000
Collingwood 15,019,000
Port 14,889,000
Swans 14,621,000
Rich 14,192,000
Geelong 13,714,000
Freo 13,334,000
Ess 13,319,000
Adelaide 13,157,000
WC 12,678,000
Hawks 12,274,000

As an Eagles supporter I have one comment.

BOOOOOOOOOO!!

That is all.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

No they aren't. 10 of the top 12 highest drawing games are mandated to be at the MCG. It is the AFLs contractual obligation to get atleast 10 of the biggest drawing games to the MCG. So what do they do? They promote, promote, promote these Faux "Blockbusters" as event matches, nationally broadcast in the best timeslots and in stand alone public holidays or Friday nights. And its not just 10. Its more like 15 or 16 just in case a few don't live up to the hype. To meet their contractual obligation. Rotated through the same 5 or 6 bigger Vic clubs. Eddie's grubby hands have been all over this deal and of course it is Collingwood who benefit the most, but the other 4 or 5 bigger Melbourne clubs all get a piece. More gate. More exposure. More sponsorship. And its all connected to the grubby MCG Contract.

They are still separate issues. Before the AFL purchased Docklands part of the agreement with Docklands was to play 46 and later 40 games per year there and they also had quotas around how many high attendance (for Marvel) games had to be played there.

Regardless of this that is still a separate issue. If we take Collingwood v Essendon for example as a "high drawing" game for the MCG it doesn't state when that game has to be played. Saturday afternoon would still draw a large crowd it doesn't have to be Friday night the premium night for advertiser's/sponsors.

I have to say I hope the small club's push back against the likes of Browne, Brasher and Kennett to remind them (Browne and Brasher in particular) that their stronger financial position isn't solely down to "good management". They have a higher base to draw from in the first place, which is fair enough but has zero to do with good financial management. And they have been benefiting from the AFLs crowd/revenue maximisation policies for three decades now which has allowed them to grow sponsorship dollars exponentially, grow membership exponentially (due to constant advertising of their club through prime time FTA fixtures) and grow matchday revenue exponentially (due to the inequities in the fixture). This final point about who has home games against who is influenced by the MCG contract but the first two points are not, they are down to the AFL wanting to sell the media rights at the highest rate and giving 7 a say in who they broadcast. Fair enough but don't then complain when other clubs receive financial compensation for that, compensation whoch is wholly inadequate when looked at over the course of the implementation of these policies. It's a compounding effect meaning there are long term ramifications on club's who have suffered from these policies far larger than just lost revenue for individual games. They have been restricted in trade by being unable to grow their brand and when taken over the course of 30 years that will take significant time to rectify.

The big club's have been twisting the arm of the league since the inception of the competition to ensure policies favourable to them (look at the farce that was zoning) hopefully the Commission has finally grown a backbone and will tell them zip it and worry about winning games of footy and let the Commission worry about the long term viability of the league.

 

[Bjo187]

Western kangaroos and Melbourne saints has always been the answer to this issue. Then only 8 clubs in Victoria which is more sustainable and the big 4 turns into the big 6.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Western kangaroos and Melbourne saints has always been the answer to this issue. Then only 8 clubs in Victoria which is more sustainable and the big 4 turns into the big 6.

I think you're missing the point.

The main point is, is this an issue at all?

The end game is that the 'game' is making money, and the industry thrives. Not individual clubs.

The job of each individual club is to bring in customers, not to make money.

As long as each individual club is bringing customers to the game, and as long as the total sum of this brings enough money to the game to ensure the industry thrives - it simply doesn't matter if a club is in debt or doesn't make money.

Quite clearly at the moment, it's not an issue at all. Sure, the more money clubs make, the better. It certainly doesn't hurt.
But ultimately, that's not what makes a club valuable to the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

AFL funding ladder revealed: $100m gap between top and bottom clubs

The size of the gap is a sore point for some power clubs, with Essendon president Paul Brasher demanding a say in how the next round of money is doled out.

www.theage.com.au

All of this discussion ignores the clubs that need an AFL guarantee to be commercially viable.
In my memory only Richmond have been able /chosen to be able to stand on their own 2 feet when commercially able, though Essendon have been trying.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Western kangaroos and Melbourne saints has always been the answer to this issue. Then only 8 clubs in Victoria which is more sustainable and the big 4 turns into the big 6.

Never gonna happen. More likely to see club's relocate than merge and even that is not gonna happen.

 

[Kwality]

When the AFL stops disadvantaging those club's with their fixturing policies impacting their ability to draw revenue (members, sponsors, game day attendance for starters) for the last 3 decades, sure.

Tough ask with so many clubs calling the G home ...

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

All of this discussion ignores the clubs that need an AFL guarantee to be commercially viable.
In my memory only Richmond have been able /chosen to be able to stand on their own 2 feet when commercially able, though Essendon have been trying.

They all need the AFL to be commercially viable.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Tough ask with so many clubs calling the G home ...

Not really

 

[Kwality]

They all need the AFL to be commercially viable.

Commercial viability is at the discretion of the lender.

 

[Kwality]

Not really

There arent enough good time slots for the number of teams wanting them.

 

[The 747]

And this comes back to the corrupt MCG Contract which you claim isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Oh you again

 

[Demonic Ascent]

There arent enough good time slots for the number of teams wanting them.

There is if they don't schedule the same teams in every week

 

[footyfan1978]

Surely it’s time to move st kilda to tassie

Or Collingwood to Moe.

 

[Kwality]

blaming the clubs for their poor stadium deals and has been told why they had no leverage to negotiate better terms but has trotted out the same rubbish in this thread again.

Perhaps its as simple as the stadiums picking off the clubs based on 'pulling power'.
Those left on the shelf expecting the VFL (sic) to look after them & it didnt.

The poor stadium deals represent commercial value at that time & if thats not 100% in the hands of the clubs ....

 

[Kwality]

There is if they don't schedule the same teams in every week

Under the old 1920s Home & Away philosophy that is not a problem .... would you suggest the home game time slots are allocated for Victorian clubs & the others just take whats left?
& its built in to the media rights deal ?
Remembering the GF deal means all clubs need to get a run on the G.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Under the old 1920s Home & Away philosophy that is not a problem .... would you suggest the home game time slots are allocated for Victorian clubs & the others just take whats left?
& its built in to the media rights deal ?
Remembering the GF deal means all clubs need to get a run on the G.

Huh? I'm talking about prime time slots, public holidays etc

Share them around equally I'm not just talking about the Vic clubs. If you don't then you can't complain about extra funding going to the club's who suffer the most from these policies (is the smaller Vic clubs)

 

[Kwality]

Huh? I'm talking about prime time slots, public holidays etc

Share them around equally I'm not just talking about the Vic clubs. If you don't then you can't complain about extra funding going to the club's who suffer the most from these policies (is the smaller Vic clubs)

So Friday night, what are the other prime slots?

 

[Frank Grimes]

So Friday night, what are the other prime slots?

It is probably also worth noting that there are only two small Victorian clubs who don't have a annual marquee game (Bulldogs and Saints).

Melbourne has Queens Birthday and ANZAC eve.
Kangaroos have good Friday.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So Friday night, what are the other prime slots?

23 Friday night games, 46 slots means every team should get 2-3 per season. Saturday night FTA another plus public holiday games. There's also Thursday night games. When the majority of these get shared amongst the same club's it further exacerbates the problem.

 

[Kwality]

23 Friday night games, 46 slots means every team should get 2-3 per season. Saturday night FTA another plus public holiday games. There's also Thursday night games. When the majority of these get shared amongst the same club's it further exacerbates the problem.

Any numbers on the numbers by club ? The venues ?

 

[aCunningPlan]

All of this discussion ignores the clubs that need an AFL guarantee to be commercially viable.
In my memory only Richmond have been able /chosen to be able to stand on their own 2 feet when commercially able, though Essendon have been trying.

If the AFL let each Melbourne-based side have a clean stadium like the non-Melbourne sides get with a half decent stadium deal, would that go some of the way to making clubs more viable? Or is it better that so much money from MCG and Docklands games go straight into the pockets of the AFL which allows them to garner a better deal to distribute among the league at their discretion?

 

[Scotland]

If the AFL let each Melbourne-based side have a clean stadium like the non-Melbourne sides get with a half decent stadium deal, would that go some of the way to making clubs more viable? Or is it better that so much money from MCG and Docklands games go straight into the pockets of the AFL which allows them to garner a better deal to distribute among the league at their discretion?

The teams that make money are the teams with season ticket holders.

Last game I went to in Melbourne was a Bulldogs home game. GA ticket at the gate cost me $20-something. Of that $20-something how much do you reckon filtered down to the home team? Last WC game I went to was in E Reserve (nosebleeds) which is $410 a year ($41/game). A Reserve is $850 a year and there are a bunch of categories above that for $1195 and $1675 before you get into corporate seats. This is where the club makes money.

I don't know the breakdown of Freo's (current, still pre-season) 43k membership but a a sold out Freo home derby does not make the home club as much money as a sold out WC home derby with fewer tickets on sale to the public/opposition members. Freo's membership is pretty solid, but in the 90s and early 2000s it was in the low to mid 20,000s so a derby could get close to a 50/50 split of support. These days it's predominantly home crowd support for either side. But even if 60,000 Freo fans turn up to a Freo home derby the additional 5, 10, 15k on top of season ticket holders still aren't as lucrative for the home side's coffers.

The AFL love drumming up 'blockbusters!' because big ticket sales mean money in their pockets. If Essendon play at Docklands and the game sells a few more tickets than forecast on top of however many Essendon season ticket holders are there the AFL doesn't make a song and dance about it. If Essendon play an MCG home game 70 or 80k turn up Gil and co are high fiving in the hallway. Clubs like big crowds because it makes them some extra money and helps to drive sponsorship interest but first prize is still getting season ticket holders paying a premium for that privilege.

If Victorian fans want to pick and choose which games to go to and buy tickets on the day then great, just remember that no stadium deal is going to give you $50 a patron if you only bring in $20.

 

[Kwality]

If the AFL let each Melbourne-based side have a clean stadium like the non-Melbourne sides get with a half decent stadium deal, would that go some of the way to making clubs more viable? Or is it better that so much money from MCG and Docklands games go straight into the pockets of the AFL which allows them to garner a better deal to distribute among the league at their discretion?

No one is unaware of the problems of 9 teams in one city across 2 stadiums, one of which is funded by the State Government (for good reason).
Toss in the 1920s model of home & away when these 9 teams would have 9 home grounds not two.

'Making clubs more viable' will only be a reality when the problems of the old VFL model (as amended) are addressed honestly, aka 'past the use by date'.

The problem of prized time slots & the AFL FIXture has been well examined here.

23 Friday night games, 46 slots means every team should get 2-3 per season. Saturday night FTA another plus public holiday games. There's also Thursday night games. When the majority of these get shared amongst the same club's it further exacerbates the problem.